By Richard Johnstone | 2 April 2014
The government’s changes to Housing Benefit, including the introduction of the so-called bedroom tax, are causing financial hardship to vulnerable people, MPs have warned today.
In a report examining the impact of reforms, which in addition to Housing Benefit cuts for social housing tenants deemed to have spare rooms also include possible cuts as part of the benefit cap, the work and pensions committee said the changes were hitting people unable to change their circumstances.
The committee recommended that ministers exempt all households that contain a person in receipt of the higher rate of Disability Living Allowance and Personal Independence Payment disability benefits from the bedroom tax, which is officially called the removal of the spare room subsidy.
Committee chair Dame Anne Begg said government reforms to housing support were intended to reduce benefit expenditure and incentivise people to enter work. It was also intended to make better use of available homes through incentivising those with extra space to downsize.
‘But vulnerable groups, who were not the intended targets of the reforms and are not able to respond by moving house or finding a job, are suffering as a result,’ Begg added.
‘Using housing stock more efficiently and reducing overcrowding are understandable goals. But 60-70% of households in England affected by the social sector size criteria [another name for the bedroom tax] contain somebody with a disability and many of these people will not be able to move home easily due to their disability.
‘So they have to remain in their homes with no option but to have their Housing Benefit reduced.’
The committee also concluded that the system of Discretionary Housing Payments, which allow local authorities to give money to people struggling to pay their rent following the changes, were not a good solution. This support was temporary, and individual local authorities have different eligibility criteria. As a result, awards from the fund tend to be based on where claimants live rather than need.
Ministers should increase the level of DHP funding if this is needed to protect vulnerable people from hardship, the report concluded.
‘Access to DHPs should depend on need, not somebody’s postcode,’ Begg said.
‘DHPs will be needed for the foreseeable future to assist people affected by the Housing Benefit reforms. Local authorities need certainty about what funding the government will make available for this, for at least the next three years.
‘The government cannot on the one hand expect local authorities to make longer-term DHP awards and on the other only outline funding levels for the short term.’
She added that DLA and PIP payments should not be included in calculations to determine eligibility for the payments. ‘Disability benefits are intended to cover the extra costs arising from a disability – they are not disposable income.
‘It is inappropriate, therefore, for them to be included in means tests for DHPs.’
